NEWS NOTES

1. STATE WITNESS. NAPOLES CASE

WHO:
a) The discharge must be WITH THE CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED sought to be a state witness
b) There is ABSOLUTE NECESSITY for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;
c) There is NO OTHER DIRECT EVIDENCE AVAILABLE for the proper prosecution of the offense
committed, except the testimony of said accused;
d) 4. The testimony of said accused can be SUBSTANTIALLY CORROBORATED in its material
points;
e) Said accused DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE THE MOST GUILTY; and
f) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving MORAL TURPITUDE.
WHEN:

As a general rule, the court should resolve any motion to

discharge only AFTER the prosecution has presented all of its evidence since it is at this time when the court
shall determine the presence of the requisites above

In some cases, HOWEVER, the SC held that the prosecution is not required to present all of its other evidence
before an accused is discharged. The accused may be discharged at any time before
the defendants have entered upon their defense.

So long as the motion is able to receive evidence for and against the discharge of an accused to become a state
witness, its subsequent order granting or denying the motion for discharge is in order notwithstanding the lack of
actual hearing on the motion
CAN A CO-CONSPIRATOR BE DISCHARGED AS A STATE WITNESS?
RULEa co-conspirator cannot be discharged as a state witness against a co-conspirator
EXCEPTIONif the crime was committed clandestinely and there is no way to prove the crime
IF THE STATE WITNESS REFUSES TO TESTIFY, WILL HIS SWORN STATEMENT BE ADMISSIBLE
AGAINST HIM?
No, his sworn statement will not be admissible against him
Otherwise, it violates his right against self-incrimination

2. PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENT- GINA LOPEZ

Under Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, classes of appointees

First, the heads of the executive departments; ambassadors; other public ministers and consuls; officers of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines, from the rank of colonel or naval captain; and other officers whose
appointments are vested in the President in this Constitution;

Second, all other officers of the government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law;

Third, those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint; and

Fourth, officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the President alone.

3 STRIKE RULE

Under the CA rules, an appointee is deemed bypassed if the commission has not acted on an appointment
before Congress adjourns session. When this happens, the President would have to reappoint the official to
continue serving the government post.

But under the three-strike rule, Pimentel said the CA would have to vote on whether to confirm or reject the
concerned appointee. If rejected, the President should no longer reappoint the affected official.

3. APPOINTMENT OF OICS- appointment of brgy officials

This contravenes the Constitution on so many fronts.

First, under the 1987 Constitution, local government positions, including those in the barangays, are by design to
be filled by election. While there is no such express declaration in the Constitution, such intention is indisputably
apparent in many of its provisions, such as these:

Article IX (C) Section 2.2:

"Exercise exclusive original jurisdictionand appellate jurisdiction over all contests...involving elective
barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction."

Article X, Section 8:

The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall
be three years and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of
the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the
full term for which he was elected.

Second, this mode of filling in barangay positions cannot be changed from elective to appointive by mere
legislative enactment. It needs a constitutional amendment.

Third, it is clear in Article X (Section 8) of the Constitution that the only discretion of Congress as regards the
term of office of barangay officials is the determination of its length. This means that in the case of elective
barangay officials, Congress can either lengthen or shorten the default 3-year term, but certainly this power does
not include the greater discretion to scrap these term limits altogether.

Fourth, the proposed legislation is a threat to the 1987 Constitution's policy of decentralization. Article II (Section
25) obliges the state to ensure the autonomy of local governments. In relation to this, Article X (Section 4)
states that [t]he President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local governments. The
Supreme Court defined the Presidents power of supervision only to mean the power of a superior officer to see
to it that lower officers perform their functions in accordance with law.

The 5th and the most important objection to House Bill 5359 is that it is not only a threat to, but a direct assault
on, democracy. It is undisputed that the power to choose barangay officials exclusively belongs to the people.

Article II (Section 1) of the Constitution reiterates that [s]overeignty resides in the people and all government
authority emanates from them. While, in theory, the people, in approving the Constitution, delegate the exercise
of most of its sovereignty in favor of the government, the power to elect public officials is a portion of that
sovereignty it reserved to itself and withheld from the government.

4. National ID System

-If passed into law, the Filipino Identification System Act would make the following offenses punishable:

Falsifying information in applying for the issuance of a Filipino ID card or procures through fraud

Utilizing the card in an unlawful manner

Any person or establishment refusing to recognize the Filipino ID card of a member

Any public official or employee conniving in the application or issuance of an unauthorized Filipino ID
card

-Unconstitutional. SC decision: Indeed, if we extend our judicial gaze we will find that the right of privacy is
recognized and enshrined in several provisions of our Constitution. 33 It is expressly recognized in section 3 (1)
of the Bill of Rights:

Section 3. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the
court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.

It is plain and we hold that A.O. No. 308 falls short of assuring that personal information which will be gathered
about our people will only be processed for unequivocally specified purposes. 60 The lack of proper safeguards in
this regard of A.O. No. 308 may interfere with the individual's liberty of abode and travel by enabling authorities
to track down his movement; it may also enable unscrupulous persons to access confidential information and
circumvent the right against self-incrimination; it may pave the way for "fishing expeditions" by government
authorities and evade the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. 61 The possibilities of abuse and
misuse of the PRN, biometrics and computer technology are accentuated when we consider that the individual
lacks control over what can be read or placed on his ID, much less verify the correctness of the data
encoded. 62 They threaten the very abuses that the Bill of Rights seeks to prevent.

The right to privacy is one of the most threatened rights of man living in a mass society. The threats emanate
from various sources governments, journalists, employers, social scientists, etc. 88 In th case at bar, the threat
comes from the executive branch of government which by issuing A.O. No. 308 pressures the people to
surrender their privacy by giving information about themselves on the pretext that it will facilitate delivery of basic
services. Given the record-keeping power of the computer, only the indifferent fail to perceive the danger that
A.O. No. 308 gives the government the power to compile a devastating dossier against unsuspecting citizens. It
is timely to take note of the well-worded warning of Kalvin, Jr., "the disturbing result could be that everyone will
live burdened by an unerasable record of his past and his limitations. In a way, the threat is that because of its
record-keeping, the society will have lost its benign capacity to forget." 89 Oblivious to this counsel, the dissents
still say we should not be too quick in labelling the right to privacy as a fundamental right. We close with the
statement that the right to privacy was not engraved in our Constitution for flattery.

5. VFA- China
In its February 2009 decision penned by now retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna, the Court upheld the
constitutionality of the VFA as it was duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and has been recognized as a
treaty by the United States.

It pointed out that Section 25, Article XVIII, 1987 Constitution provides that foreign military bases, troops, or
facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when
the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for
that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.
The VFA, which is the instrument agreed upon to provide for the joint RP-US military exercises, is simply an
implementing agreement to the main RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty, the SC said.

6. IMPEACHMENT

7. What rules govern impeachment proceedings?

According to the Constitution, Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment. The House and the Senate
have adopted the rules of procedure governing impeachment proceedings in their respective chambers.

In the House, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, as far as practicable, are made to apply. In the Senate, the Rules
of Court are made to apply insofar as they are applicable, and the rules of evidence and procedures are liberally
construed in the impeachment proceedings.

9. Who may file a verified impeachment complaint?

The following may file a verified complaint for impeachment:

(1) any member of the House;

(2) any citizen upon a resolution or endorsement by any member of the House; and

(3) at least one-third of all the members of the House, in which case such complaint or resolution shall constitute
the articles of impeachment and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.

12. What is the role of the House in the trial?

The House shall act as the sole prosecutor at the trial in the Senate through a committee of 11 members to be
elected by a majority vote.

13. What is the role of the Senate?

It is the Senate which has the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.
15. May impeachment proceedings be initiated against the same official more than once within a year?

No, impeachment proceedings cannot be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of
one year.

16. Who is the presiding officer in the impeachment trial?

When the Philippine President is on trial, the Chief Justice shall preside.

In all other cases of impeachment, the Senate President shall preside.

17. Does the Chief Justice, as presiding officer in the trial, have the power to vote?

No.

18. What are the powers of the presiding officer?

The presiding officer shall have the power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all
orders, mandates and writs authorized by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other regulations and
orders on the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide.

19. Does the presiding officer have the power to rule on questions relating to evidence presented during the
trial?

Yes. The presiding officer may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of
materiality, relevancy, competency or admissibility of evidence and incidental questions. The ruling shall stand as
the judgment of the Senate unless a senator shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall
be submitted to the Senate for decision after one contrary view is expressed; or the presiding officer may, at his
option, in the first instance, submit any such question to a vote.

21. May the senators put a question to the witnesses or any of the counsel?

Yes. If a senator wishes to put a question to a witness, he or she shall do so within two minutes. A senator may
likewise put a question to a prosecutor or to counsel of the prosecutor or the person impeached. The parties or
their counsel may interpose objections to witnesses answering questions propounded by any senator and the
merits of any such objection may be argued by the parties or their counsel.

22. Is the trial required to be conducted in public?

Yes.

24. How shall the Senate render its decision?

On the final question whether the impeachment is sustained, the yeas and nays shall be taken on each article of
impeachment separately. If the impeachment shall not be sustained, a judgment of acquittal shall be entered; but
if the person impeached shall be convicted upon any such article, the Senate may proceed to consider other
matters as may be determined to be appropriate before pronouncing a judgment.

25. Is a motion for reconsideration of the vote on any article

of impeachment allowed?

No.

28. What are the consequences of a decision of conviction?

A conviction results in the removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the
Philippines. Likewise, the party convicted shall be liable and subject to prosecution, trial and punishment
according to law.

29. Does resignation end the impeachment process?

No. The purpose of impeachment is not merely to remove an officer from office but also to disqualify him or her
from holding any office. The use of the conjunction and in the Constitution signifies that disqualification is not
merely an accessory penalty, as in criminal cases, but a principal penalty apart from that of removal. It can be
said that in an impeachment proceeding, removing the officer impeached is just as important as preventing him
or her from holding any office under the republic.

30. Can the Senate impose a penalty of censure?

Yes. Since judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and
disqualification, the Senate can decide to impose a lesser penalty, like censure or reprimand.

31. Can the Senate compel the officer impeached to appear in person and/or answer the charges?

No. If the person impeached shall fail to appear, or, appearing, shall fail to file his answer, the trial shall proceed
nevertheless as upon a plea of not guilty.

32. Can the officer impeached assert his right against self-incrimination?

Yes. The officer impeached, like any other citizen, enjoys the constitutional right against self-incrimination.

35. Is the remedy of appeal available against the judgment of the Senate?

Generally, no. The judgment of the Senate is a political decision which may not be reviewed by the courts.

7. International Criminal Court

Location: Hague Netherlands
The ICC has four principal organs: the Presidency, the Judicial Divisions, the Office of the Prosecutor, and the
Registry.
Structure: The ICC is governed by an Assembly of States Parties, which is made up of the states which are party
to the Rome Statute ( 1 representative from each party state). The Assembly elects officials of the Court,
approves its budget, and adopts amendments to the Rome Statute.
4 organs:
the Presidency,
the Judicial Divisions,
the Office of the Prosecutor, and
the Registry
Jurisdiction:
There are three jurisdictional requirements in the Rome Statute that must be met before a case may begin
against an individual. The requirements are (1) subject-matter jurisdiction (what acts constitute crimes), (2)
territorial or personal jurisdiction (where the crimes were committed or who committed them), and (3) temporal
jurisdiction (when the crimes were committed).

Subject-matter jurisdiction

The Court's subject-matter jurisdiction means the crimes for which individuals can be prosecuted. Individuals can
only be prosecuted for crimes that are listed in the Statute. The primary crimes are listed in article 5 of the
Statute and defined in later articles:

1. Genocide- "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or
religious group".
2. Crimes against humanity- acts "committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against
any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack".
3. War crimes- Article 8 defines war crimes depending on whether an armed conflict is either international
(which generally means it is fought between states) or non-international (which generally means that it is
fought between non-state actors, such as rebel groups, or between a state and such non-state actors).
4. Crimes of aggression- as "the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity
or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the
United Nations
Territorial or personal jurisdiction

-an individual can only be prosecuted if he or she has either (1) committed a crime within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Court or (2) committed a crime while a national of a state that is within the territorial jurisdiction
of the Court.

- includes the territory, registered vessels, and registered aircraft of states which have either (1) become party to
the Rome Statute or (2) accepted the Court's jurisdiction by filing a declaration with the Court. [73]

Personal jurisdiction

The personal jurisdiction of the Court extends to all natural persons who commit crimes, regardless of where
they are located or where the crimes were committed, as long as those individuals are nationals of either (1)
states that are party to the Rome Statute or (2) states that have accepted the Court's jurisdiction by filing a
declaration with the Court.

Admissibility

To initiate an investigation, the Prosecutor must (1) have a "reasonable basis to believe that a crime within the
jurisdiction of the Court has been or is being committed", (2) the investigation would be consistent with the
principle of complementarity, and (3) the investigation serves the interests of justice. [78]

Complementarity

The principle of complementarity means that the Court will only prosecute an individual if states are unwilling or
unable to prosecute. Therefore, if legitimate national investigations or proceedings into crimes have taken place
or are ongoing, the Court will not initiate proceedings.

Gravity

The Court will only initiate proceedings if a crime is of "sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court".

8. IMMUNITY OF STATE REPRESENTATIVES

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961:

o Article 22 - embassy cannot be entered without consent - premises of embassy inviolable

o Article 24 - archives and documents inviolable

o Article 27 - "diplomatic bag" (i.e. pouch) inviolable

o Article 29 - diplomats are inviolable exempt from arrest and detention exempt from enforcement
jurisdiction
 o Article 30 - private residence of diplomat inviolable

o Article 31 - diplomats are exempt from civil jurisdiction except: real estate, wills, professional and
commercial activity outside official duties

o Article 32 - immunity can be waived by the sending state

o Article 37 - immunity applies to family of diplomat ["household"] certain rights apply to technical
staff other employees

o Article 41 - mission cannot be used in a manner inconsistent with international law

o Article 9 - receiving state can declare diplomat persona non grata at any time for any reason

CONSULAR IMMUNITY
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963:

o Article 43 - consular officials are immune from jurisdiction of judicial and administrative
authorities for "acts performed in the exercise of consular functions" i.e, in an official capacity

o Article 41 - consular officials are not liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case
of a "grave crime"

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONNEL

o The United Nations

(US-UN Headquarters Agreement, and the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the
U.N.)

a juridical person

property is immune

premises are inviolable

tax exempt

o Diplomatic Representatives to the UN

(US-UN Headquarters Agreement, and the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the
U.N.)

immune from spoken and written word limitations

privileges enjoyed in transit to and from sessions

free from arrest and detention

no seizure of baggage

inviolability of documents

immunity in US

if US recognizes the state of the representative, he or she is accorded the same

immunity as diplomats from states US recognizes

if US does NOT recognize, then the representative is only immune in

headquarters, residence, and official transit

o UN Organization Officials
(Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the U.N.)

immune from spoken and written word

immune for acts performed in official capacity

9. Emergency powers of the president vs National emergency

Theres a distinction between the Presidents authority to declare a state of national emergency and to
exercise emergency powers. The President has the power to declare a state of national emergency even
without authorization from Congress. The exercise of emergency powers, such as the taking over of privately
owned public utility or business affected with public interest, is a different matter. This requires a delegation from
Congress.

10: EMERGENCY under the Constitution:

a. Congress authorizes president president:

In times of war or other national emergency,

the Congress may, by law, authorize the President,

for a limited period and

subject to such restrictions as it may

prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a

declared national policy.

TERMINATION: Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next
adjournment thereof.

b. Exception to bill process

GR: No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days,
and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage,

EXP: except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity
or emergency

c. Temporary takeover of private properties

In times of national emergency,

when the public interest so requires,

the State may, during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it,

temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public
interest.

d. GR: The tour of duty of the Chief of Staff of the armed forces shall not exceed three years.

EXP: However, in times of war or other national emergency declared by the Congress, the President may extend
such tour of duty.

10: WAR under the Constitution:

a. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy

b. The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall
have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.
11. Rights of the Accused (Sec. 11 22, Art. III)
1. The right to free access to the courts and adequate legal assistance.
2. The right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have counsel when under investigation for
the commission of an offense.
3. The right against the use of torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which
vitiates the free will.
4. The right against being held in secret, incommunicado, or similar forms of solitary detention;
5. The right to bail and against excessive bail.
6. The right to due process of law.
7. The right to presumption of innocence.
8. The right to be heard by himself and counsel.
9. The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
10. The right to have speedy, impartial, and public trial.
11. The right to meet the witnesses face to face.
12. The right to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of
evidence in his behalf.
13. The right against self-incrimination.
14. The right against detention by reason of political beliefs and aspirations.
15. The right against excessive fines.
16. The right against cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment.
17. The right against infliction of the death penalty except for heinous crimes.
18. The right against double jeopardy.
19. The right against ex post facto law and bill of attainder.

12. Nepotism

nepotism is classified as a grave administrative offense punishable by dismissal from the service.

a) Administrative Code of 1987, prohibits nepotic appointments or those made in favor of a relative of the
appointing or recommending authority, or of the chief of bureau or office, or of the persons exercising immediate
supervision over the appointee.

relative- under the said Code refers to those related within the third degree of consanguinity (relationship by
blood) or affinity (relationship by marriage)

b) LGC, the prohibition extends to the appointing or recommending authoritys relatives within the fourth degree
of consanguinity or affinity, such as first cousin or first cousin-in-law (4th degree).

c) 1987 Constitution- Appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness to be
determined, as far as practicable, and, except to positions which are policy-determining, primarily confidential, or
highly technical, by competitive examination.

Exempted from this rule,

teachers,
physicians,
members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
scientific and technology personnel under R.A. 8439,
and primarily confidential positions such as Administrator (Provincial/City/Municipal), Executive Assistant,
Private Secretary, and Chauffeur/Driver.

those involved in the personal security of elective or appointive officials;

as well as the personal staff of elective officials, department heads,
other Cabinet officials whose tenure is at the pleasure of the President, and
chairpersons and members of commissions and boards with fixed terms of office.

13. UPLC
Only those of general or of permanent character are to be filed in the UPLC. According to the UP Law Centers
guidelines for receiving and publication of rules and regulations, interpretative regulations and those merely
internal in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the Administrative agency and not the public, need not
be filed with the UP Law Center.
14. MARTIAL LAW- REBELLION
Rebellion or insurrection; How committed. The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by:
a) rising publicly and taking arms against the Government
b) for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of the
Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces,
c) depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or
prerogatives.
Constitution:
1. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty
days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under
martial law.
2. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress.
3. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session,
may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President.
4. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or
suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and
public safety requires it.
5. The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension,
convene in accordance with its rules without any need of a call.
6. The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension
thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
NOTE:

A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil
courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over
civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.

The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses
inherent in or directly connected with the invasion.

During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially
charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.

15. What does the suspension of the privilege of the writ habeas corpus means?

When the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended, the courts are momentarily prevented from
determining the legality of a detention. This means that people who have committed the crime of rebellion (or
even suspected ones) may be arrested without warrant of arrest and objects that were used in the commission
of the crime of rebellion may be seized without search warrant.

Purpose: hold in preventive imprisonment persons who plotted or committed acts that endanger the
existence of the State pending their investigation and trial (Padilla vs. Ponce Enrile, L-61388, April 20, 1983).

1. Court may not determine legality of arrest/ search

2. Police may arrest or search without warrant

3. BUT, person detained must be judicially charged in 3 days.

4. Fails to, must release.

5. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
(consti).

6. There is no right to bail in the military ( SC case)

16. Prohibition Against Holding of Dual or Multiple Offices Apply As Well To Temporary Designations
Agra positions:

Government Corporate Counsel

Designated him as the Acting Solicitor General

designated as the Acting Secretary in place of Secretary Devanadera when the latter resigned.

Agra then relinquished his position as Corporate Counsel and continued to perform the duties of an Acting
Solicitor General.

Thus, Acting Secretary and Acting Solicitor General.

Agra argued that his concurrent designations were merely in a temporary capacity. His designation as an Acting
Sol Gen is merely akin to a hold-over, so that he never received salaries and emoluments for being the Acting
Sol Gen when he was appointed as the Acting Secretary of Justice.

Issue 1: W/N Agras designation as Acting Secretary of Justice is valid

No. The designation of Agra as Acting Secretary of Justice concurrently with his position of Acting Solicitor
General violates the constitutional prohibition under Article VII, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution.

It is immaterial that Agras designation was in an acting or temporary capacity. The prohibition against dual or
multiple offices being held by one official must be construed as to apply to all appointments or designations,
whether permanent or temporary, because the objective of Section 13 is to prevent the concentration of powers
in the Executive Department officials, specifically the President, the Vice-President, the Cabinet Members and
their deputies and assistants.

Issue 2: W/N Agra may concurrently hold the positions by virtue of the hold-over principle

No. Agras designation as the Acting Secretary of Justice was not in an ex officio capacity, by which he would
have been validly authorized to concurrently hold the two positions due to the holding of one office being the
consequence of holding the other. It is not sufficient for Agra to show that his holding of the other office was
allowed by law or the primary functions of his position. To claim the exemption of his concurrent designations
from the coverage of the stricter prohibition under Section 13, he needed to establish that his concurrent
designation was expressly allowed by the Constitution.

Issue 3: W/N the offices of the Solicitor General and Secretary of Justice is in an ex officio capacity in relation to
the other

No. The powers and functions of the Solicitor General are neither required by the primary functions nor included
in the powers of the DOJ, and vice versa. The OSG, while attached to the DOJ, is not a constituent of the latter,
as in fact, the Administrative Code of 1987 decrees that the OSG is independent and autonomous.

17. Inciting to Sedition. Delima

A. That the offender does not take a direct part in the crime of sedition

B. That he incites others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition (134)

C. That the inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamations, writing, emblems, cartoons,
banners, or other representations tending to the same end (purpose: cause commotion not exactly
against the government; actual disturbance not necessary)
 Different acts of inciting to sedition:

a) When punishable:

b) Inciting others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition by means of
speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems etc.

c) Uttering seditious words or speeches which tend to disturb the public peace or writing, publishing, or
circulating scurrilous [vulgar, mean, libelous] libels against the government or any of the duly
constituted authorities thereof, which tend to disturb the public peace

d) Knowingly concealing such evil practices

e) when they tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of his office; or

f) when they tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes

g) when they suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots; or

h) when they lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of
the community, the safety and order of the government

18. MR and DJ

MR for purposes of 65. Of course, on occasions, a motion for reconsideration after an acquittal is possible. But
the grounds are exceptional and narrow as when the court that absolved the accused gravely abused its
discretion, resulting in loss of jurisdiction, or when a mistrial has occurred. In any of such cases, the State may
assail the decision by special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65.

MR for purposes of appeal of civil aspect. The private complainant or offended party may not undertake such
motion for reconsideration or appeal on the criminal aspect ofthe case. However, the offended party or private
complainant may file a motion for reconsideration of such dismissal or acquittal or appeal therefrom but only
insofar as the civil aspect thereof is concerned. In so doing, the private complainant or offended party need not
secure the conformity of the public prosecutor. If the court denies his motion for reconsideration, the private
complainant or offended party may appeal or file a petition for certiorarior mandamus, if grave abuse amounting
to excess or lack of jurisdiction is shown and the aggrieved party has no right of appeal or given an adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law."

19. Writ of Kasaysayan

"writ of pamana" (heritage) or a "writ of kasaysayan" (history) as a legal remedy for the protection of a citizen's
right to "all the country's artistic and historic wealth [which] constitutes treasure of the nation," under Section 14,
15, and 16, Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution.

20. 3e, RA 3019 Corrupt practices of public officers

To be found guilty under said provision, the following elements must concur:

(1) the offender is a public officer;

(2) the act was done in the discharge of the public officers official, administrative or judicial functions;

(3) the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and

(4) the public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference.

21.